Menu

The Curious Case of Megan Huntsman

It is uncanny how easy it is for human beings to see things so clearly in some situations, but fail to see a correlation in parallel circumstances. Let me tell you a story from Utah about a woman named Megan Huntsman.

Megan Huntsman had three children already—two teenagers and an adult. And she didn’t feel like she should have any more children. So she decided to go to an abortion clinic. Seven times she went to the abortion clinic, and seven times she “got rid” of her unwanted babies. In a strange twist, she asked for the remains of the infants and stored them in cardboard boxes in her garage. Her husband never knew about the pregnancies or the strange collection in the garage. Her other children never knew either. In fact, even the neighbors thought the family was pretty much normal.

Aside from collecting the remains, this story has happened over and over again all over this country. Well, and one other point. Megan Huntsman didn’t actually go to an abortion clinic. She killed her babies herself, apparently in the process of or right after birthing them. Because of this one small feature of bad timing, Megan Huntsman has gone from “tragic story of a cornered woman saved by reproductive rights” to “horrific story of murderous monster who butchered babies and collected infant bones.”

But, in reality, the two things just aren’t different. It surprises me to no end how vehement and judgmental people have been toward Megan Huntsman. Don’t get me wrong. I think what she did is absolutely deplorable. But how is it that our country can be so disgusted by seven dead infants killed in cold blood by an obviously deranged “mother,” and yet not even bat an eye at the graveyard of millions of infants we have stored in our national garage of shame?

Reality is a tricky thing. It’s easy for us to hide from it behind re-defined words and split hairs. But there’s no need to mince words. In fact, it is of the utmost importance that we tell the truth—abortion is murder. Disgusting murder of the most innocent life in this country. And in our hearts we know we have blood on our hands. Let Megan Huntsman be a sign to you—let’s work to end the abortion holocaust.

Simple. Science shows life starts at conception. Therefore, it is ending a human life with a pre meditated notion. Murder. You may continue to hide behind “what the law defines” a human, but science shows different. As someone that parades science around like the definitive answer of the worlds questions, I’d expect you to be behind this. But, I can only wait for politics to catch up with science, just like it obscenely did with evolution and education. Although this time, its for a good reason.

The supreme court is the law of the land. What you DIMWIT teabaggers don’t get is that you can’t put toothpaste back in the tube!! Gay rights and woman’s rights are here to stay. If you don’t like that, there are plenty of other countries to choose from!!! You might start with Saudi Arabia or Iran.

No sir, It’s you that needs a life, God intended for us to reproduce. If you abort a baby; you are causing a hormonal imbalance and a load of guilt on your shoulders. Not to mention that you would have a higher rate of different types of cancer and in some cases death of the mother. Legal or illegal, Abortion is still murder, because it kills two things; the baby and the conscience of the mother. Those are facts, look them up.

I am only talking about abortion. At one point you couldn’t murder babies, Bob.
The government, us, paying for it is an even bigger problem to me. Just because
the supreme court made it legal doesn’t mean my money should go to support it if it is
a person’s right. Then only they should pay for that.

The Supreme Court is the law of the land, but God is the Supreme Ruler and Lawmaker of the Universe. What you don’t get DIMWIT is that someday you’ll stand trial in His courtroom. Then there will be only two possible verdicts. “Justified” by the blood of Jesus or “condemned” to eternal suffering.

Why do you want to live in this evil land??? Wouldn’t you be MUCH happier in a country like Somalia,Uganda.Afghanistan,Iran,Egypt, or Bangladesh that share your views??? Pack your bags & leave. I can assure you, you won’t be missed & take some religious kooks with you!

Do you always reply to yourself? Kind of weird to be telling yourself to get a life. You did not understand yourself the first time so, you replied again? And that you would love to be you. Hmmm… Looks like the real dimwit protests too much.

Roe v. Wade was BAD law. It s NOT the job of the Supreme Court to create laws. Their job is to INTERPRET laws. The only reason this ended up in the courts in the first place was that nobody on Capital Hill had the balls to vote one way or another, so they found a test case and sent it through the court. That is as bad as Barack HUSSEIN Obama arbitrarily picking was laws he wants to enforce, which laws he choses not to enforce, arbitrarily changing Obama/Democrat Care…all illegal. The US Constitution does not allow the president to pick and choose what law he likes, doesn’t like, or just wants to change. He is, under law, required to enforce all laws AS THEY WERE WRITTEN. PERIOD!!!

Read the Constitution. The Supreme Court is NOT supposed to be an activist court. By actually WRITING law, they usurp Congress. Any law actually written by the Supreme Court is bad law and usually occurs on hotbed issues the spineless cowards in Congress of BOTH parties do not want to deal with. That is NOT how it is supposed to work. For the record, I have three graduate degrees from Stanford.

The supreme court doesn’t define ‘morals’. They decide on cases and their opinions set precedents. Roe v wade opened the door to safe access to reproductive health for women. Why do you want to go back to back alley abortions and hanger hooks???

It would have been better if Utah actually allowed safe access to abortions without interference. Currently, Utah law requires that A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to DISCOURAGE her from having an abortion and then wait 72 hours before the procedure is provided. Counseling must be provided in person and must take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two separate trips to the facility. If Utah wasn’t run by religious fundamentalist KOOKS, this woman could have had safe,LEGAL abortions.

What part of Abortion is safe? The answer is none of it is safe, because it kills the baby and the conscience of the mother; throwing the mother into a hormonal imbalance, a higher rate of different types of cancer, also, the mother could die from an abortion from uncontrolled bleeding.

60 million murdered children is anything but civilized. No one ever said nations were ruled by moral and righteous people. Abortion and contraception were created by men to make women more available for sex. Unfortunately for them and their physical and emotional health, too many women have bought in to the lie. Abortion was started by men and some day will be ended by men when they realize how immoral it is to use women as sex toys.

Let’s set aside what is legal according to the Supreme Court. Set aside all laws for the moment. Explain to me (logically) how what this woman did is different than an abortion. I’ll even give you the first 25 weeks for free – explain to be how what this woman did is any different than a late-term abortion. I am not asking for a legal or moral judgment – just straight facts.

Other than location (inside vs. outside the womb) what is the difference between killing a healthy, viable, 30-week-old fetus, and a newborn baby?

So are you denying your precious science then? I’m confused. Here is what I am seeing. You yourself have two parental role models: government and science. And like a child, when one gives you an answer you don’t like, you go to the other in hopes of a different answer. For example. Science shows life begins at conception and it is a human life. But you don’t like it, so to justify your stance on abortion, you go to daddy government and say, “It’s the law get over it!” Now, reverse the roles, and when it comes to freedom of religion and the government says its ok, yet you still want to call us kooks and bigots, you go crying to momma earth science and says we are just a bunch of morons and can’t wait for government to shut us all up.

You just like to flip flop your stance when you want to justify your actions and hate Bob. Pick a side and stick with it. Either acknowledge that science has proven life begins at conception and it’s a human, or deny it to justify your killing of babies for all the wrong reasons.

You’re the one that needs to study the bible. According to Hebrew law a fetus is NOT a human being. according to the bible the jews got their laws from Moses & where do you think Moses got the law??? That’s right GOD!!!

The Bible has plenty to say about abortion in the New Testament and in the Old Testament. Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, several comments on murder, which abortion is the taking of life. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined, as the judges determine. If the woman dies, however, the culprit could be killed in the Old Testament. This is not a new teaching but traditional teaching.

The Bible says – “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

“And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . .”–Ex. 21:22-25

Looking at Old Testament Bible law from a proper cultural and historical context, it is evident that the life of the unborn is put on the same par as the person outside the womb.

When understood as a reference to miscarriage, the Bible in Exodus 21:22-25 is sometimes used as evidence that the unborn is subhuman. But a proper understanding of the passage shows reference is not to a miscarriage, but to a premature birth, and that the injury referred to, which is to be compensated for like all other injuries, applies to the child as well as to his mother. This means that, “far from justifying permissive abortion, in fact grants the unborn child a status in the eyes of the law equal to the mother’s.

The most significant thing about abortion legislation in Biblical law is that there is none. It was so unthinkable that an Israelite woman should desire an abortion that there was no need to mention this offense in the criminal code.” [6] All that was necessary to prohibit an abortion was the command, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). Every Israelite knew that the preborn child was indeed a child. Therefore, miscarriage was always viewed as the loss of a child and abortion as the killing of a child. Looking at Old Testament law from a proper cultural and historical context, it is evident that the life of the unborn is put on the same par as the person outside the womb.

I never ignore the Bible. Saw my neighbor coming home from work on a Sunday ~ so I killed him. I felt foolish too because he still owes me $2,500 he borrowed 6 1/2 years ago. But I figured. what the hell, in 6 months I have to forgive his debt . . . . so it all worked out in God’s Plan.

But then his widow accused me of breaking one of the 10 Commandments ~ Thou Shall Not Kill. So, now I’m all confused!

buckman21 says, For example. Science shows life begins at conception and it is a human life.

You can stop right there. If science has concluded that human life begins at conception . . . good.

That has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade’s constitutional rights to privacy.

“Oh, so you’re just fine with killing a human life so you can have your privacy?”

You wish I was “just fine with killing a human life” for my arbitrary convenience ~ but my personal values on abortion are never callous ~ the way most men’s vales are callous towards Sperm Accountability.

Are your values centered on projecting your religious righteousness directly into the womb of every woman who wants NOTHING to do with you? ~ and you want nothing to do with her?

“Are your values focused on projecting your religious righteousness directly into the womb of every woman who wants NOTHING to do with you? ~ and you want nothing to do with her?”

So? If that is the case, doesnt your party believe what schools are best for our kids (public), what foods are best and bad for us? What energy choices are better? What cars are best for us? Why is it your party gets to decide what is best for us yet we aren’t allowed to? Here’s a scenario for you then. Lets say I have a bowl of candy. Inside this bowl of candy, some of them randomly have poison in them, and should anyone ingest them, they will die immediately. Now, you know this, but I don’t. Would you in good conscience, with full knowledge of the situation, allow me to eat the candy? Would you allow me to take the candy out to a crowd and allow them to partake? Same thing with abortion. We know what is happening, and innocent blood shouldn’t have to be shed on others behalf’s.

“You don’t have to imagine what America will be like if abortion rights are eliminated.”

Stop the problem at it’s source. Whether that is dead beat dads, inefficient birth control, or people just don’t care about human life (economic reasons NEVER are a good reason in my opinion. Been there, done that, would NEVER consider abortion on option, I don’t care about “freedom” to choose it, it’s murder). People in their right minds shouldn’t even consider abortion being an option, I don’t care how screwed up the world is. The fact that a mother, is willing and knowingly going to end the life of her child for all the wrong reasons, is more sick and twisted than this world will ever be. There is no, absolutely, no good reason to end an innocents life, when they have nothing to be blamed for or responsibility.

You do not have to be religious to be against abortion so fervently. My wife’s friend is an atheist as the day is long. Yet she will personally damn those women who do these things because how disgusting, heinous, and evil it is. That’s right. Someone that apparently has no religious moral connections, can clearly see how wrong this is. If she can, then that just tells me the women that do get abortions have no conscience, or are so selfish, they just don’t care.

“You yourself have two parental role models: government and science. And like a child, when one gives you an answer you don’t like, you go to the other in hopes of a different answer”.

…. and like a child? Last Resistance and similar 501(C)3/4 websites are ~ political advertising platforms and suppliers for list generation demographics ~ their competitive credibility of market share value to political advertisers and vendors relies on extreme journalism. Using journalism as a business model tool demonizes debate and occludes all sense of common ground.

What drives these forums is the emotional force of the articles ~ articles that fail most standards of good journalism. But Last Resistance, Liberalism’s Worst Nightmare, isn’t in the journalism business. So to criticize them for deplorable journalism is tantamount to criticizing Charlton Heston for being a deplorable golfer.

But in this world of brave new political business models, they do ask us to THINK, yes? And think deeply on the issues of the day. “Thinking” on purely emotional extremes has never been recommended or preferred. The exception is in Advertising. I’ve come full circle.

As “thinkers”, we have all the responsibility. But it doesn’t come naturally, it least it didn’t for me. Socrates devised a thinking-disclipine called Critical Thinking Skills. A deductive reasoning process where, instead of proving you’re right – they’re wrong, you ask a series of questions in a particular order. The process allows the other person to ‘discover’, on their own terms, whether their point of view has substantive merit.

LABobE touched on this yesterday with: Begging The Question. The logical fallacy trick in debating.

False Equivalency is another excellent critical thinking tool to determine the validity of one’s analogy. Like yours here:

“Lets say I have a bowl of candy. Inside this bowl of candy, some of them randomly have poison in them, and should anyone ingest them, they will die immediately. Now, you know this, but I don’t. Would you in good conscience, with full knowledge of the situation, allow me to eat the candy? Would you allow me to take the candy out to a crowd and allow them to partake? Same thing with abortion. We know what is happening, and innocent blood shouldn’t have to be shed on others behalf’s.”

Wikipedia has a quick, short-cut version of False Equivalency definitions. Read them. Then see if you feel your analogy has merit. It may. It may not. I’ve been criticized heavily in these forums for not expressing in detail why someone’s analogy, like your bowl of candy, is pure nonsense. Because I’d rather the reader be inspired to learn some of these ‘thinking principles’, as opposed to firing off my opinion.

“Why is it your party gets to decide what is best for us yet we aren’t allowed to?”

That statement is a glaring failure in deductive reasoning. With the passion you’ve expressed and time you invest in these forums, I’d like to believe you’re inspired to read about deductive reasoning and critical thinking skills. If anything, you’ll find you’ll make stronger arguments that will stand up better than most like-minded people expressing views from a purely emotional state of anger and disgust.

I once didnt care about religion much. Then got more involved and understood my faith more. If you wont accept my reasoning of “God is God and anything is possible through Him”, thats your problem, not mine (in terms of circular reasoning).

Also as a thinker, I once didnt have interest in things around me, unless it involved me directly. And thats a bleak outlook to have on life. So yes, I may not have an abortion nor my wife, but that doesnt mean I can’t or shouldn’t voice and stand up for fervently the horrors of what abortion is. Same with say, global warming. I used to believe it, until I saw both sides and how the alarmists today are false and have been proven wrong through their own science.

Instead of trying to pick apart my arguement, and if debate is what you want, then debate. Do I make decisions based on emotion? Yes. But at least I know the outcome and understand it. Bob and other liberals act out of emotion, but dont care of the process, only that they feel their way is best and there is no other reasoning. Therefore, that is why his posts are mostly hate and talking down. I fail to see where I fall into that category. I pointed out that there are steps that should be taken other than just plain making abortion illegal.

There are videos too. Slightly satirical, but informative nonetheless. I cant like it since this is a phone, but look up “xtranormal global warming hoax” on YouTube. Its a little over 12 mins long. My favorite one

Then I apologize. It seemed you depicted those with “circular reasoning” in faith to be un intelligent. At least that is the way it looked in your responses to Bob and his “begging the question” defense.

“Also as a thinker, I once didnt have interest in things around me” That’s not remotely the point made!

Your lack of comprehension skills is so stunning, I’m slapping myself in the face for wasting my time.

Remember, you are a marketing device. Or as internet writers say, a tool:

Last Resistance and similar 501(C)3/4 websites are ~ political advertising platforms and suppliers for list generation demographics ~ their competitive credibility of market share value to political advertisers and vendors relies on extreme journalism to purify their lists. Using journalism as a business model tool also demonizes debate and discourages common ground.

What drives these ‘comments forums’ is the emotional force of the articles ~ articles that fail most standards of good journalism. But Last Resistance, Liberalism’s Worst Nightmare, isn’t in the journalism business. So to criticize them for deplorable journalism is tantamount to criticizing Charlton Heston for being a deplorable golfer.

Set aside a trial & conviction & what is legal according to the supreme court what is the difference between a person killing a murderer chopping him up in little pieces & putting them in his refrigerator & the state executing a man in the electric chair?

Even though you did not answer my question, I will answer yours. There is no difference from a purely objective point of view. It’s taking a life vs. taking a life.

So, the follow-up question to the question you didn’t answer is this: do you attach any moral significance to either killing? Is killing an unborn baby “good,” “bad,” or neutral? Same question vis-a-vis a newborn.

There’s the equation ~ It’s my way (or) you are a murderer. The equation that feeds the hedonistic, self-gratifying passion for your ‘undying love’ of the unborn without ever getting your hands dirty for the undeserving, emotionally wrecked children living in poverty ~ raised by parents that shouldn’t be allowed to raise a hamster.

I was thinking the same thing when the story came out. Tragic, certainly. But why is it any different than an abortionist killing a baby that “accidentally” survives the abortion? She obviously killed them soon after birth based on the information.

I am curious how her husband didn’t know about this. He had to know she was pregnant if she carried them all to term. Why did he only notice the “smell” from the last one? What did he think was happening to all her pregnancies?

Gee, if she had lived in Philly she could have gone to Kermit Gosnell and then she would be facing no charges at all…..so basically she is in legal trouble for several late term DIY post-birth abortions, Gosnell-style (and I’m sure there are more Gosnells out there who are more careful than he was and will likely never get caught and punished, at least not in this life).
And to those who point out the legality of abortion – remember this – in Nazi Germany it was also perfectly legal to kill Jews, homosexuals and handicapped people wholesale in slaughterhouses built just for that purpose. That was, at that time and in that place, the law of the land. And of course in this country’s history slaves were not afforded all the rights of white people. So just because something is legal (or illegal, for that matter) doesn’t mean diddly squat in the whole scheme of things.